NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Limiting door-to-door
> solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement
> permits
> using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when
> Government
> targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
> content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the
> government
> into trouble.

Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
and drug labelling.

--
Mark

---

› See More: NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Limiting door-to-door
> solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement
> permits
> using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when
> Government
> targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
> content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the
> government
> into trouble.

Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
and drug labelling.

--
Mark

"Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> to Free Speech.
>


Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
during prime time?
Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
transmissions?
If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

"Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> to Free Speech.
>


Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
during prime time?
Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
transmissions?
If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

The term commercial free speech is a term used by the courts, not made up by
yours truly. If you want, I have a copy of a law review on this subject
that I can privately e-mail to you. Send an e-mail to me. I'm
stuartfriedman. The dom'n name for me is Ameritech, followed by the d o t
and a net suffix. Please my manner of presentation, but I'm trying to
avoid the close cousin of the telemarketer.

Stu
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial
free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to
think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those
same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we
could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.
>
>

The term commercial free speech is a term used by the courts, not made up by
yours truly. If you want, I have a copy of a law review on this subject
that I can privately e-mail to you. Send an e-mail to me. I'm
stuartfriedman. The dom'n name for me is Ameritech, followed by the d o t
and a net suffix. Please my manner of presentation, but I'm trying to
avoid the close cousin of the telemarketer.

Stu
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial
free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to
think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those
same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we
could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.
>
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood
of
> >these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
> >dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
> >
>
> I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
> interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
> costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
> telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
> look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
> not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
> adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
> time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.

you didn't research far enough.
you can take that out of state company to florida court. you can be awarded
up to $10k. that's a good $10 investment.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood
of
> >these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
> >dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
> >
>
> I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
> interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
> costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
> telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
> look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
> not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
> adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
> time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.

you didn't research far enough.
you can take that out of state company to florida court. you can be awarded
up to $10k. that's a good $10 investment.

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

Amen!

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Mark F" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
> > supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
> > to Free Speech.
> >
>
>
> Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
> speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
> the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
> For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
> advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
> of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
> during prime time?
> Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
> Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
> home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
> restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
> transmissions?
> If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
> cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

Amen!

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:17:00 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

>"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Well that didnt take too long folks!
>> >
>> > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
>>
>> Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even better,
>> how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our free
>> evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
>
>Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
>http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
>
>The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
>Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
>Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
>Cannon, R-Utah.

Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
they claiming principle?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"[T]he world is not a perfect place. It is a world filled with malice and
evil, a world where, today, none of us is truly safe, even in our homes,
from the very real danger that a total stranger will call us up and demand
that we change our phone company." - Dave Barry

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:17:00 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> chose to add this to the great equation of
life, the universe, and everything:

>"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Well that didnt take too long folks!
>> >
>> > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
>>
>> Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even better,
>> how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our free
>> evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
>
>Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
>http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
>
>The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
>Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
>Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
>Cannon, R-Utah.

Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
they claiming principle?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"[T]he world is not a perfect place. It is a world filled with malice and
evil, a world where, today, none of us is truly safe, even in our homes,
from the very real danger that a total stranger will call us up and demand
that we change our phone company." - Dave Barry

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
> they claiming principle?
>=20

Who says both aren't true?

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
> they claiming principle?
>=20

Who says both aren't true?

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread <[email protected]>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Limiting door-to-door
>> solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
>> using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
>> targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
>> content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the
>> government into trouble.

So take out the exceptions -- I don't want to hear from the politicians or
charities, either.

>Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
>liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
>porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
>and drug labelling.

Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"'And if that Billy goat don't shed, papa's gonna buy you ... a squirrel
named Ed.'" - Dave Barry